All energy costs rise but small nuclear most reactive.
Small modular nuclear reactors proved the most expensive technology of the eight options by a large margin, with the report basing its costs on Canada’s Darlington nuclear project, announced in May.
Small modular nuclear reactors proved the most expensive technology of the eight options by a large margin, with the report basing its costs on Canada’s Darlington nuclear project, announced in May.
By Jennifer Dudley-Nicholson, July 29 2025 , https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/9027259/all-energy-costs-rise-but-small-nuclear-most-reactive/
Next-generation nuclear reactors are the most expensive of all energy-producing technologies, a report has found, and would significantly increase electricity prices in Australia.
Establishing a large-scale nuclear power plant for the first time would also require more than double the typical costs, and estimates for wind projects had inflated by four per cent due to unforeseen requirements.
The CSIRO, Australia’s national science agency, released its GenCost report on Tuesday, revealing rising construction and finance costs would push up prices for energy projects of all kinds in the coming years.
The findings come after a heated debate about introducing nuclear power to Australia and after members of the federal coalition questioned the nation’s reliance on renewable energy projects to achieve net zero by 2050.
The final GenCost report for 2024-2025 analysed the cost of several energy-generating technologies, including variations of coal, gas, nuclear, solar and wind projects.
Renewable technology continued to provide the cheapest energy generation, the report’s lead author and CSIRO chief energy economist Paul Graham said.
“We’re still finding that solar PV and wind with firming is the lowest-cost, new build low-emission technology,” he told AAP.
“In second place is gas with (carbon capture storage) … then large-scale nuclear, black coal with CCS, then the small modular reactors.”
Small modular nuclear reactors proved the most expensive technology of the eight options by a large margin, with the report basing its costs on Canada’s Darlington nuclear project, announced in May.
The 1200-megawatt development is estimated to cost $23.2 billion and will be the first commercial small modular reactor built in a Western country.
The new reactors produce one-third the power of typical nuclear reactors and can be built on sites not suitable for larger plants, but have only been built in China and Russia.
“This is a big deal for Canada – it’s their first nuclear build in 30 years,” Mr Graham said.
“It’s not just about meeting electricity demand … they’ve said a few things that indicate they’re trying to build a nuclear SMR industry and export the technology.”
In addition to the cost of different technologies, the report estimated “premiums” for establishing first-of-a-kind energy projects, with the first large-scale nuclear project expected to command 120 per cent more and the first offshore wind development expected to cost an extra 63 per cent.
The cost of wind projects also grew by four per cent as researchers factored in building work camps to accommodate remote employees, and capital financing costs rose by one per cent.
Developing energy projects was also expected to cost between six and 20 per cent more by 2050, the report found, due to the rising price of materials such as cement and wages, as detailed in a report by Oxford Economics Australia.
Findings from the CSIRO report would help inform the design of future energy infrastructure, Australian Energy Market Operator system design executive general manager Merryn York said.
“We’ll use the capital costs for generation and storage from GenCost in the upcoming Draft Integrated System Plan in December,” she said.
Nuclear technology is banned as an energy source in Australia, which has a target of achieving 82 per cent renewable energy in the national grid by 2030 and reaching net zero by 2050.
Small Nuclear Reactor company’s focus turns to raising $500+ million.
COMMENT. The ask for $500-million has been out there for about two years. Deadbeats, all of them involved in this sorry excuse for a project. It’s pathetic.
It comes after review by Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission that it hopes to parlay into newfound investment
Adam Huras, Jul 10, 2025,
https://tj.news/new-brunswick/smr-companys-focus-turns-to-raising-millions-to-finish-design-work
ARC Clean Technology says its focus is now raising what is likely still the hundreds of millions of dollars it needs to finish the design work of its small modular nuclear reactor.
It’s a figure that’s likely upwards of $500 million, according to two former ARC CEOs.
That’s with the aim to enable NB Power to submit a license to construct application hopefully by 2027, with a target commercial deployment at Point Lepreau in the early 2030s.
It comes after the completion of a review by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission that it hopes to parlay into newfound private investment.
Earlier this week, the country’s safety commission said it identified “no fundamental barriers” to licensing the ARC’s proposed sodium-cooled fast neutron reactor, after completing a second design review that had stretched on for over three years.
It’s a result that ARC is calling a “pivotal step” toward commercial deployment.
That’s while adding it gives the company new “global credibility” in a race to market.
Its focus now is raising new money.
“Our current focus is on advancing strategic partnership and investment discussions to set the stage for the next phase of design work to support a license to construct application,” ARC Clean Technology spokesperson Sandra Donnelly told Brunswick News.
Asked specifically how much money is needed, Donnelly declined to say.
“We continue to evaluate the going forward cost estimate through current discussions with strategic partners,” she said.
“We are not sharing specific numbers.”
ARC’s former CEO Bill Labbe had previously said the ARC-100 would cost $500 million to develop and needed an additional $600 million more in power purchase agreements to move the project forward.
That was after the Higgs government gave $20 million to ARC, while the feds awarded the company another $7 million.
Ottawa also provided NB Power with $5 million to help it prepare for SMRs at Point Lepreau.
The Gallant Liberal government also first spent $10 million on ARC and Moltex, the province’s other company pursuing SMR technology, as they set up offices in Saint John now roughly eight years ago.
In an interview with Brunswick News on Thursday, another former ARC president and CEO, Norm Sawyer, who left the company in 2021 and is now a board member at the National Research Council Canada, pegged the figure needed to likely be between US$500 and $700 million.
“A preliminary design is almost essentially complete,” Sawyer said of the Phase 2 review. “Obviously, the next step needs money.
“They would also have to staff up.”
Sawyer said further design work could involve upwards of 100 employees with intensive final engineering to be completed.
That doesn’t include the construction of a facility at Lepreau, Sawyer said.
Brunswick News first reported last spring that ARC had handed out layoff notices to employees, while confirming that, in parallel, its president and CEO since 2021, Labbe, was leaving the company.
Asked if staffing levels will now change, Donnelly said that’s now “being reviewed as part of preparations for the next phase of design work.”
“It’s a positive step for them, it’s just can they leverage it now to get to the next step which is really investment,” Sawyer said. “I think there’s value there for investors.
“It’s also up to how much risk investors are willing to take. I think the investor would want a PPA (power purchase agreement) first.”
A power purchase agreement is a long-term contract where a nuclear power plant sells electricity to a buyer, often a utility, government, or large energy consumer.
NB Power CEO Lori Clark told a committee of MLAs at the provincial legislature earlier this year that ARC is “looking for investors now.”
Clark herself travelled to South Korea last December to promote ARC’s “commercialization possibilities,” in part to drum up new financial support.
A trilateral collaboration agreement was announced last year between South Korea’s utility, ARC, and NB Power with the goal of establishing “teaming agreements for global small modular reactor fleet deployment.”
ARC also said that it welcomed in February “multiple delegations” from South Korea’s utility.
No financial agreement has been revealed as of yet.
Finding the money necessary to finish design work is integral to building timelines.
“Our next objective is to complete the required design work by 2027 to enable NB Power to submit a license to construct application, with a target commercial deployment in early 2030s,” Donnelly said.
“Timelines will continue to be reviewed as design work and partnership discussions progress.”
The company still faces other challenges.
Brunswick News has also reported that ARC is still in search of a new enriched uranium supplier, after it originally planned to buy from Russia. It’s a problem Sawyer has suggested might result in a redesign of the company’s small modular nuclear reactor technology.
Asked if the concern over an enriched uranium source has been resolved, Donnelly said that “the availability of HALEU (high-assay low-enriched uranium) fuel remains an overall market issue.
“We are encouraged that the HALEU supply chain has advanced significantly over the past year with strong government support in multiple countries, and we continue to evaluate multiple options to secure a fuel supply for the first ARC unit,” she added.
The enriched uranium is an integral component of the company’s ARC-100 sodium-cooled fast reactor.
But it’s not as simple as finding that enriched uranium closer to home. While Canada mines uranium, and there are currently five uranium mines and mills operating in Canada, all located in northern Saskatchewan, it does not have uranium enrichment plants.
The U.S. opened its first and only enrichment plant, operated by Centrus Energy in Ohio, amid a federal push to find a solution to the Russia problem. It remains the only facility in the U.S. licensed to enrich uranium, and has a lineup for SMR firms seeking its fuel.
That said, there appeared to be a glimmer of hope on the uranium front late last year as the Trudeau federal government’s fall economic statement promised support to strengthen nuclear fuel supply chains.
“To support demand for allied enriched nuclear fuel and bolster supply chain resiliency, the 2024 fall economic statement announces the government’s intent to backstop up to $500 million in enriched nuclear fuel purchase contracts from the United States or other allied countries, including high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), subject to further consultations with industry stakeholders on program details, and provide $4 million over 10 years, starting in 2024-25, for Natural Resources Canada to administer the program,” reads the fall mini budget.
The current Carney government has yet to table a budget laying out whether that commitment will continue to go ahead.
Tonnes of nuclear waste from Gentilly-1 secretly rolled down Quebec roads
A federal appeals court has already ruled that CNL and Canada’s nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), both acted improperly by not consulting the Kebaowek FN on the proposed “megadump” at Chalk River.
Shockingly, many of the radioactive species proposed for permanent storage in that earthen mound – the megadump, the NSDF – will remain dangerous for tens of thousands of years.
Gordon Edwards, 15 July 25
Since 2015, a consortium of multinational corporations led by two American firms has been contracted by the Government of Canada to “manage” all federally-owned nuclear facilities and all federally-owned radioactive waste.
The consortium, operating under the banner of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), has already been paid several billions of dollars from the Canadian treasury. In September a new consortium of three American multinationals is slated to take over the reins of CNL
and will continue to receive close to a billion dollars a year of federal tax dollars.
There is a federal petition in the House of Commons calling on the government to pause the contract until a federal audit has been conducted to determine where all that money is going. If you are a Canadian citizen, please sign your name to that petition and tell your friends and colleagues about it.
The article below indicates that all the high-level radioactive waste – used nuclear fuel – from the defunct Gentilly-1 nuclear reactor in Quebec has been secretly transported to Chalk River Ontario by the consortium, even though its current licence does not authorize such a transfer.
In typical grandiose fashion, CNL spokespersons boast that the consortium has “eliminated” a major liability. In actual fact the high-level waste has merely been moved upstream, to Chalk River, right on the border of Quebec, right beside the Ottawa river that flows down to Montreal.
There is no mention of how much Canadians have had to pay the consortium for this operation, which was both unnecessary and ill-advised. The high-level waste cannot stay at Chalk River, it will have to be moved again at further taxpayer expense – because there is as yet no permanent home for any such highly radiotoxic waste – waste that will remain dangerous for many hundreds of thousands of years.
CNL falsely claims that municipalities and indigenous people were fully informed about the shipments. This is not true. For example, Keboawek First Nation (on whose ancestral land Chalk River is situated) was completely blind-sided by the Gentilly-1 radioactive waste being imported onto their territory without their full prior and informed consent, as required by law.
A federal appeals court has already ruled that CNL and Canada’s nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), both acted improperly by not consulting the Kebaowek FN on the proposed “megadump” at Chalk River. KFN knew nothing about this operation until after it was completed. You cannot consult someone about a “fait accompli”.
The Chalk River megadump – euphemistically called the Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF) – is intended to hold a million tons of so-called “low level radioactive waste” in a glorified landfill operation perched on a height of land not far from the Ottawa River.
Shockingly, many of the radioactive species proposed for permanent storage in that earthen mound – the megadump, the NSDF – will remain dangerous for tens of thousands of years.
The megadump has been opposed by over a hundred Quebec municipalities, including the City of Montreal and its “agglomeration” partners. As far as we can determine, none of these municipalities were notified or consulted about the Gentilly-1 waste shipments.
Has Canada granted American multinational corporations, all of them closely linked to the American nuclear weapons program, “carte blanche” to do what it likes without even notifying or consulting those Canadians that are most directly affected by their actions?
CNL is concentrating all federally-owned radioactive wastes of human origin at Chalk River, right across from Quebec, on a river that empties into the St. Lawrence River at Montreal. Large volumes of radioactive waste from Quebec and Manitoba, as well as from Kincardine and Rolphton in Ontario, is being accumulated at this one location It is astonishing that the present Quebec government has absolutely nothing to say about this.
Past Quebec leaders have had the audacity to speak up. When Quebec activists intervened to prevent a high level nuclear waste dump in Vermont, Premier Bourassa stated that Quebec would never allow a permanent nuclear waste repository “in its territory or on its frontiers”. The Quebec National Assembly passed a unanimous resolution against the import of radioactive waste into Quebec for permanent disposal. Just on the border is OK?
Apparently, out of sight is out of mind. How times have changed….
The operation was completed at the end of June, after several months.
Sylvain Larocque, Le Journal de Montréal, 14 July 2025, https://tinyurl.com/msasbd4w
Over the past few months, dozens of trucks have been secretly driving the roads of Quebec to transport tonnes of irradiated fuel from the Gentilly-1 plant in Bécancour to Chalk River, Ontario.
– Also read: Hydro-Québec CEO Michael Sabia cautious on the nuclear issue
– Also read: Looking back: the nuclear adventure lasted only 29 years in Quebec
How many convoys were there?
Where exactly did they go?
It’s impossible to know.
‘To ensure the safe and secure transport of these materials, we cannot divulge specific information about the routes,’ Alexandra Riopelle, a spokeswoman for the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), which was responsible for the operation, told Le Journal.
In all, there were 2985 fuel bundles to be transferred. These contained 62.8 tonnes of uranium, occupying a total volume of 12.1 cubic metres.
The trips began last autumn and ended a fortnight ago,” says Ms Riopelle.
Protected by the provincial police (Sûreté du Québec)
Quebec police officers provided security for each of the convoys.
‘I can confirm that we saw these materials being transported,’ says Sûreté du Québec inspector Richard Gauthier, although he declined to give any further details.
CNL, a consortium made up of the engineering firms Atkins-Réalis (formerly SNC-Lavalin), Jacobs and Fluor [both based in Texas], discreetly issued a press release last week highlighting the ‘success’ of the ‘removal of fuel from Gentilly-1, more quickly than expected’.
‘Canadian Nuclear Laboratories has eliminated a major nuclear liability and paved the way for the next stages in the decommissioning’ of the former experimental power station, which operated intermittently from 1972 to 1977, the organisation declared in a tone of self-congratulation.
No clear announcement
However, CNL has never made a clear announcement about the start of transport activities. In the spring of 2025, CNL provided information [no details!] on the decommissioning of Gentilly-1, but the question of transporting nuclear waste was only vaguely addressed.
It was a Montreal citizen, Jacques Dagenais, who alerted Le Journal in May. ‘If there were an accident, half the Montreal and Gatineau-Ottawa regions would have to be evacuated,’ he said.
Although the nuclear waste from Gentilly-1 left the Centre-du-Québec region, it did not go very far: the Chalk River Laboratories are located on the banks of the Ottawa River, a stone’s throw from Quebec.
Gordon Edwards, a well-known anti-nuclear campaigner, also condemns the transport of spent fuel from Gentilly-1.
‘Even after 40 years, irradiated fuel still emits significant quantities of radioactivity’, he says. [Correction: it is not radioactivity that is emitted; radioactive materials emit ‘ionizing radiation’ often referred to as ‘atomic radiation’]
Terrorist risks
Guy Marleau, a professor at Polytechnique Montréal, maintains that it is to reduce risks, particularly terrorist risks, that nuclear waste shipments are not announced in advance.
“We make sure that the transport is carried out at times and on routes where the risk of collision is minimised,” explains the expert. As far as possible, we try to avoid crossing watercourses….
“Even if there is a collision with fire, the fuel is protected. The thing we’re most afraid of is it ending up at the bottom of a river.”
CNL asserts that it has notified the municipalities and aboriginal communities along the convoy route. The town of Bécancour and the Abenakis of Wôlinak did not reply to the Journal on this subject.
‘Quebec is notified and consulted’ when highly reactive waste is transported, ‘to ensure that risks are properly managed’, says Marjorie Larouche, spokesperson for the Ministry of the Environment.
As for Hydro-Québec’s Gentilly-2 power station, which ceased operations in 2012, its decommissioning [dismantling] could also be accelerated. It is not yet known whether its irradiated fuel will remain on site or be shipped elsewhere in Canada.
Peace River nuclear power project: The hidden cost
Alberta is already building faster, cheaper alternatives. Between 2019 and 2022, the province added over 1,400 megawatts of wind and solar, with another 2,500 MW in development, according to the Alberta Electric System Operator.”
Patrick Jean, Jul 15, 2025 , https://www.dailyheraldtribune.com/opinion/more-expensive-than-you-think-the-hidden-cost-of-nuclear-energy
As someone born in Peace River and raised in the Falher–Donnelly area, I care deeply about the land, water, and communities that would be affected by the proposed nuclear facility in northwestern Alberta. Although I live in Edmonton now, I work as a Municipal Energy Manager for a small rural municipality in the province, and my family still lives across the region — from McLennan to Marie-Reine.
Though I’m relatively new to public service, I bring over 20 years of experience in project management, systems analysis, and strategic planning across various sectors, including energy, agriculture, and technology. I’ve worked with municipalities, nonprofits, and institutions across Alberta on energy efficiency, infrastructure modernization, and rural economic development. I hold an Honours degree in Sustainability Management from MacEwan University, and continue to deepen my training in energy policy and climate adaptation as I prepare to do my Master of Sustainable Energy Development at the University of Calgary. I’ve also published and presented research on how geothermal energy can support rural economies—work that reflects my broader commitment to clean, decentralized solutions that benefit communities like the one I come from.
In contrast, Alberta is already building faster, cheaper alternatives. Between 2019 and 2022, the province added over 1,400 megawatts of wind and solar, with another 2,500 MW in development, according to the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO). Most renewable projects are completed in under five years, with many rooftop and community systems operational in less than one. In 2022, solar became the world’s fastest-growing source of new electricity capacity.
They’re also far more cost-effective. Lazard’s 2025 Levelized Cost of Energy+ estimates nuclear at $141–$251 per megawatt-hour, compared to just $37–$81 for wind and $38–$66 for solar. Nuclear is up to six times more expensive than renewables, and that doesn’t include long-term waste management, decommissioning, or liability coverage—costs that often fall to the public. Clean energy isn’t just cheaper—it’s better for jobs. A dollar invested in solar or wind creates 2.8 to 5.7 times more employment than the same dollar spent on nuclear, according to peer-reviewed research in energy policy. These are jobs in construction, maintenance, engineering, and operations, many of which can be located in rural and underserved communities.
Even if built, nuclear doesn’t align with the needs of modern energy systems. Grids today depend on flexibility, not constant output “baseload” plants like nuclear reactors that can’t adjust quickly to changing demand. When renewable energy production is high, inflexible nuclear can force the grid to waste clean power. In contrast, renewables combined with battery storage, smart grid controls, and demand-side response offer more adaptable, resilient energy systems. Research in Joule and PNAS shows that 100 per cent renewable grids with storage are not only viable, they’re more stable than those relying on nuclear.
In the time it would take to bring Peace River’s reactors online, Alberta could:
• Deploy 10 to 15 GW of solar and wind,
• Install 1–2 GW of grid-scale storage,
• Retrofit public buildings and homes for energy efficiency,
• Launch locally led clean energy partnerships, and
• Create tens of thousands of well-paying jobs.
The local risks are just as serious. A nuclear facility would withdraw millions of litres of water per day from the Peace River for cooling, potentially harming aquatic ecosystems and fish spawning habitats. A 2021 study in Environmental Monitoring and Assessment found that thermal pollution and water drawdown from nuclear plants disrupt river ecosystems.
Public submissions and academic research have also raised critical concerns about the cultural and social impact of this project. The proposed site lies within Treaty 8 territory—an area with deep spiritual, cultural, and subsistence significance. According to The Canadian Journal of Native Studies (2022), long-term nuclear waste storage near such lands threatens intergenerational safety and undermines the cultural integrity of surrounding communities. The Land Use Policy journal emphasizes the importance of free, prior, and informed consent under Canada’s obligations to UNDRIP—yet many affected communities report they have not been meaningfully engaged. The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) has already documented frustration with inaccessible technical documents and limited public engagement in its summary of issues.
We don’t need to go down this road. Alberta already has the tools to reduce emissions, create good jobs, and support rural communities—without waiting decades or spending billions on a legacy system that doesn’t serve our needs.
The Peace River nuclear proposal would delay real climate action, raise electricity costs, and place long-term environmental and financial burdens on the very communities it claims to help. We already have faster, cleaner, and smarter options. We should be investing in them now.
Patrick Jean is a holistic sustainability consultant, policy analyst, and municipal energy manager based in Edmonton. He holds an honours degree in sustainability management, has over 20 years of experience in systems analysis and project management, and has published research on rural energy innovation. He was born in Peace River, raised in the Falher–Donnelly area, and maintains strong family and community ties across the region. His comprehensive comments are available on the Government of Canada’s Impact Assessment Agency.
Northern Ontario residents oppose plan to dump radioactive material near drinking water source.
By Angela Gemmill, July 15, 2025, https://www.ctvnews.ca/northern-ontario/article/northern-ont-residents-oppose-plan-to-dump-radioactive-material-near-drinking-water-source/
Residents in Nairn and Hyman and surrounding communities met Monday to discuss concerns about a plan by the province to transfer radioactive material into the area.
Concerns were first raised last summer after a local municipal councillor noticed newer back roads and inquired about the upgrades.
That’s when the township discovered that the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Mines were planning to move 18,000 cubic metres of niobium radioactive materials from Nipissing First Nation to the tailings area at Agnew Lake.
Agnew Lake is 27 kilometres from the township’s drinking water.
“We felt we really hadn’t been consulted,” Nairn and Hyman Mayor Amy Mazey told the crowd.
“We were told the ‘naturally occurring radioactive material’ was just like gravel.”
Last September, the municipality asked the province for more specific information about the project, which was scheduled to begin this summer.
“This is not ‘NORM ‘–naturally occurring radioactive material,” Mazey said.
“It contains hazardous heavy metals — uranium, niobium, radium 226, cadmium, arsenic, selenium, silver and manganese.”
In April, both ministries provided the township with a massive report filled with technical and scientific details. So the township hired environmental consultants Hutchinson Environmental Sciences Ltd. to interpret the report — and determine what science was missing.
That information was presented to residents on Monday, who were then asked for feedback and suggestions on what to do next.
Mazey said there are eight studies missing from the report.
“The two most important are a cumulative risk assessment — what’s going to happen when you put uranium tailings on top and niobium tailings together,” she said.
What will happen? And also a drainage study — so where is the water going to go, how is it going to leech? All of those things that were outlined that should have been done already, we just haven’t seen them.”
Township CAO Belinda Ketchabaw said what it boils down to is that the province wants to put radioactive materials in a lake that’s already struggling.
“(Agnew Lake) site is already in crisis, and they want to bring in more radioactive material to ‘fix’ the site,” Ketchabaw said.
“It doesn’t really add up to me. When the science isn’t there, there’s no trust. We need to trust what is best for our community.”
Safe outcome
Ketchabaw said they’ve learned that some of the niobium material will be taken to a Clean Harbors facility near Sarnia, made for hazardous waste.
She said it raises the question that if the material is hazardous enough to be sent to this facility, shouldn’t it all be sent there?
“Let’s just bring it all there and have a safe outcome for everyone,” Ketchabaw said.
Furthering distrust, Mazey said the two ministries often give the community contradictory information.
“It just raises a lot of red flags,” she said.
“I hope that the Ontario government listens to the residents and takes us seriously that this isn’t an easy fix … Just because this is the most convenient solution for the province, it doesn’t mean that it’s the best solution.”
Margaret Lafromboise, who lives close to the Spanish River, said she’s concerned about having “an unsafe radioactive site increased in volume.”
“I think the most constructive and practical thing to do would be to see if the municipality could get financial help to hire a lawyer and initiate an injunction to stop the action immediately,” Lafromboise said.
“As a society, as a province, we are not taking good enough care of our environment, the water and I don’t believe our current government is willing to take the action that is required.”
Representatives from the provincial ministries were not invited to Monday’s town hall.
Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility’s recommendations opposing the proposed30-year operating licence extension for the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station (DNGS)
27June 25, Gordon Edwards
Recommendation 1: CCNR urges the Commission to grant Darlington no more than a five-year licence, to incentivize the public to remain engaged on matters of radiological safety, and to pressure the staff of OPG and CNSC to improve their practices related to public heath and safety. In our opinion, under no circumstance should a licence of more than ten years be countenanced.
Comments: The CNSC is expected to review the financial guarantee for decommissioning the Darlington plant every five years. The plant’s safety analysis is expected to be reviewed every 10 years. Why should public input be so underappreciated that it only has to be considered once in three decades?
Suspicions of regulatory capture can only be intensified when regulatory staff meets with industry representatives behind closed doors, decade after decade, without any meaningful public involvement. After all, the CNSC’s primary legal obligations are to the Canadian public, the Canadian environment, and the international community – not to the licencee. Without reasonably frequent public hearings, without listening to the concerns of the public directly, staff may come to regard those legislated responsibilities as more abstract than real. The staff of the licensee and the staff of the regulator become of one mind; the public is seen as an unwelcome intruder.
Ultimately, this is not good for the CNSC or for OPG. CCNR believes it is also not good for the public, or for the trust that CNSC wishes to enjoy from the public.
Recommendation 2: CNSC staff should be required to report to the Commissioners and to the public on a regular basis what efforts are being made to drastically reduce the routine releases of radioactive materials into the environment from Darlington.
Comments: On an annual basis, Darlington releases several hundred trillions of becquerels of radioactive hydrogen (tritium). Tritium is readily incorporated into all living things in the form of radioactive water molecules, as a result of ingestion, inhalation, or absorption through the skin. Tritium emissions from Darlington are far greater than corresponding tritium emissions from any other power reactors in the world, except for other CANDU reactors. Although CNSC and OPG staff are both quick to point out that these tritium emissions are “within regulatory limits”, that does not exonerate CNSC from the responsibility of requiring that such emissions be kept “As Low As Reasonably Achievable”, in accordance with the ALARA principle. All radioactive emissions are ionizing. Ionizing radiation is acknowledged to be a Class 1 carcinogen. No genotoxic carcinogenic material should be disseminated freely into the environment without the strictest possible controls, regardless of whatever regulatory limits may have been established arbitrarily by fiat. There is no science-based rationale for Canada’s tritium standards. It is not honourable to allow such very large releases of radioactive hydrogen to continue unabated for another three decades without any discernible effort to drastically reduce those emissions. Indeed, what efforts have been made in the last 30 years or will be made in the next 30 years to cut these emissions by orders of magnitude? Is that even a goal of the Commission? Or is the operating licence for a nuclear power reactor also a licence to freely pollute ad infinitum?
Similar considerations apply to routine emissions of radioactive carbon-14 from Darlington, which are reported to be at least a trillion becquerels per year or more. Since carbon-14 has a radioactive half-life of 5,700 years, carbon-14 emissions accumulate in the environment year after year as each year’s emissions are simply added to the previous year’s emissions. Carbon-14 from DNGS has been accumulating already for over 30 years, and it will continue to accumulate for the next 30 years if the licence is granted as requested. Thus 1 trillion becquerels per year turns into 60 trillion becquerels overall. What, if anything, is CNSC or OPG doing to prevent this from continuing?
As long ago as 1980, the Select Committee on Ontario Hydro Affairs reported that trium and carbon-14 “are easily incorporated into human tissue. Carbon-14 is incorporated into the carbon that comprises about 18 percent of total body weight, including the fatty tissue, proteins and DNA [molecules]. Tritium is incorporated into all parts of the body…. Thus the radiological significance of both elements is not related to their inherent toxicity, as each is a very low energy form of radiation, but to their easy incorporation in the body.”
Recommendation 3: All radioactive releases from Darlington should be posted on-line in real time so the public can be properly notified of those releases as they happen.
Comments: Testimony before the Select Committee on Ontario Hydro Affairs in 1979 by Dr. Edward Radford (Professor of Environmental Epidemiology at the Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh) indicated that sudden large pulses of tritium absorbed by a pregnant woman can have a life-long effect on her unborn daughter by causing genetic damage to the baby girl’s eggs – damage that will persist throughout her life and could affect her eventual offspring. In 2023, in just one week, 6,469 curies = 239 trillion becquerels of tritium were released from Darlington. That’s comparable to an entire year’s release of tritium from just one unit happening in just one week. Yet the public has no way of knowing about this sudden massive leak of tritium in order to do what they can to protect themselves and their unborn babies. For these reasons, OPG should be required by CNSC to publicly report all radioactive emissions on-line in real time, so that vulnerable citizens such as pregnant women and parents of young children can choose to vacate the area when sudden large releases of triium or other radionuclides occur.
Recommendation 4: In accordance with its mandate to disseminate objective scientific information, CNSC should publicly declare that it is not correct for anyone to say that nuclear energy is “clean” (or non-polluting).
Comments: In addition to the radioactive hydrogen and radioactive carbon released routinely in large amounts from Darlington, as well as the radioactive iodine, other routine emissions occur. Over 100 million becquerels of radioactive iodine vapour is released annually from Darlington, along with more than 10 million becquerels of radioactive particulates. In addition, millions of becquerels of alpha emitters are released every year from Darlington. Bear in mind that alpha-emitters are hundreds to thousands of times more biologically damaging, per becquerel, than beta-emitters or gamma-emitters. For example, elementary arithmetic shows that one becquerel of plutonium inside the body is about 18,000 times more biologically damaging than one becquerel of tritium at the same location. Tens of trillions of Bq-MeVs of radioactive noble gases are released, that are heavier than air and so stay close to the ground, delivering radioactuve exposures from abve by what is called “skyshine”. Does the Commission ever concern itself with drastically reducing these large routine radioactive emissions? Does the Commission ever feel uneasy when nuclear power is called a “clean” or “non-emitting” energy source in defiance of scientific fact?
Recommendation 5: Darlington Nuclear Generating Station should not be given an operating licence for more than five years. At all future licencing hearings for Darlington, OPG’s detailed plans for dismantling the Darlington reactors should be spelled out in very specific terms and the public should be invited to weigh in on those plans from a community health and safety perspective.
Comments: During a retubing operation at Pickering many years ago, workers were contaminated with carbon-14 dust and carried that contamination into their homes for a period of several weeks. More recently, over 500 workers were contaminated with airborne plutonium dust for a period of several weeks during the refurbishment of Bruce unit 1. In both cases, the contamination was not detected by the standard radiation monitors in place at every nuclear power plant. In both cases, the radioactive contamination was only detected when air samples were analyzed and the offending materials were identified.
Dust that can contaminate the clothing or the lungs of workers, undetected, can equally well blow in the wind and contaminate people and property far from the reactor site. The public should be fully informed of the precise details of OPG’s plans for radioactive demolition, and given a chance to have their own input into those plans. It is possible, indeed likely, that a detailed examination of those plans will lead to the need for a greatly enhanced financial guarantee on the part of OPG to ensure that those plans can be carried out safely and to the complete satisfaction of local residents. It is also important that ratepayers learn the true cost of nuclear decommissioning, which will give a more realistic assessment of the total cost of nuclear-generated electricity.
Recommendation 6: CNSC staff be instructed by the Commission members to commission experts not affiliated with CANDU reactor design, operation, or regulation, to conduct an independent peer review of the calculations that led CNSC staff to conclude that 100 trillion becquerels of cesium-137 is a realistic and acceptable estimate of the “source term” following a severe nuclear accident at Darlington Nuclear Generating Station.
Comments: CCNR has obtained documentary evidence that this number was arbitrarily chosen by CNSC staff without any credible accident scenario to support that number. CCNR analysts have also examined the 2015 CNSC document Study of Consequences of a Hypothetical Severe Nuclear Accident and Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures. In paragraph one of section 3.1, the authors of the report state that a “large release” of radioactivity is, by definition, any release of more than 100 terabecquerels of cesium-137. Anything less than 100 TBq does not even qualify as a large release. Then, in the second paragraph of section 3.1, the authors arbitrarily select that very number, the lowest possible number, namely 100 terabecquerels, as their assumed large release from Darlington. In doing so staff ignores its own definition, that all large releases must be greater than that amount. Please note that the authors of the CNSC report have simply chosen the lowest possible number that can be used to describe a large radioactive release, and they have used that number as an estimate of what a large release at Darlington might actually be. Despite promising to do so, the authors fail to describe or refer to any realistic accident scenario that would in fact result in such a small radioactive release of cesium-137.
Using straightforward calculations, CCNR estimates that a typical Darlington core contains a total of at least 55,000 trillion becquerels of cesium-137. Since there are 480 fuel channels in each Darlington reactor, each channel contains about 114.6 trillion becquerels of cesium-137. At a temperature of 1500 degrees C (well below the melting point of the fuel) the exposed fuel will release about 25% of the cesium inventory in one hour. In the event of severe core damage, all of the cesium released from the overheated fuel will escape from the calandria because the rupture disks on top will have exploded, providing an unfiltered pathway for the cesium vapour to escape into the containment. Given the fact that each of the 480 fuel channels can release 57 trillion becquerels of cesium-137 in one hour, it is impossible to believe that only 100 trillion becquerels of cesium-137 will find its way out into the environment, given the relatively leaky containment system that exists at Darlington.
Recommendation 7: OPG should not be given an operating licence for a period of more than five years, and all future licencing hearings for Darlington should include a detailed re-evaluation of Emergency Measures in accordance with a more realistic estimated source term.
Comments: In the event of a severe accident in a CANDU reactor, leading to a truly large release of radioactivity, emergency measures that are currently predicated on a maximum release of 100 trillion becquerels of cesium-137 will be woefully inadequate. Radioactive cesium contamination of homes and properties will be far greater, more extensive, and persistent, than currently considered possible. Residential and commercial areas closest to the Darlington plant may well remain uninhabitable for decades, as we learned from bitter experiuence at Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. Considering the enormous volume of radioactively contaminated water that was flushed into the Pacific Ocean following the Fukushima accident, including the 1.2 million tons of radioactive water that is currently being dumped into the Pacific, one can only wonder about the deleterious effects on Lake Ontario and the millions of people that draw their drinking water from the Lake. Canadians deserve an honest, science-based, realistic assessment of what the consequences of a severe nuclear accident might be in Canada. The CNSC has an obligation to provide them with objective scientifically based information, not self-serving efforts to low-ball the risk estimates for public relations purposes. The public will have to be consuilted more frequently rather than less frequently. Their right to a healthy body and a healthy environment cannot be taken for granted for thirty yeards at a time. Shame on OPG for even suggesting such a thing.
One final word. CCNR fully supports the position of Dr. Frank Greening against wasting valuable hearing time by allowing private profit-making parties or other project-supporting groups to have equal time with public or indigenous intervenors who are addressing legitimate matters of public health and safety or environmental integrity that are fundamental to the core mission of CNSC as a regulator. The time saved by eliminating such promotional testimony can be used to extend the time available for other presenters to make their interventions, or to provide closing argumants near the end of the proceedings as would be permitted in a judicial setting.
Ford’s nuclear obsession is robbing Ontario of its true clean energy future
Canada’s National Observer Adrienne Tanner, June 19th 2025
Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford just can’t seem to shake his aversion to renewables.
Ford’s new Energy for Generations plan, mapping out energy generation from now to 2050, is laudable for its end goal: to all but end Ontario’s reliance on gas for electricity generation. But its single-minded pursuit of new nuclear power projects is myopic when it comes to solar and wind, the gold standard sources of clean energy.
Ontario is seriously eyeing sites for three even bigger nuclear plants than it already has — “the equivalent of adding about five Darlington Nuclear Generating Stations to the grid,” the report states — with the possibility of even more of them down the road.
As for solar and wind, the plan calls for a modest increase of slightly more than double the small amounts produced now which comprise 11 per cent of Ontario’s power supply. And the clincher: solar and wind will get a boost while nuclear plants are being scaled up, but only for a short while.
Once new nuclear plants are up and running, Ontario actually plans to dial back progress on renewables. It sounds like the province plans to tear down solar installations and wind farms and haul the pieces off to metal recyclers and landfills. And why? On those questions, the plan is silent.
The only hint is a bullseye graphic comparing the amount of land needed for a new nuclear plant compared to the much greater amounts needed to generate the same amount of power from solar or wind. As might be expected from a plan that reads like a pro-nuclear manifesto, there isn’t a single mention of the radioactive waste generated from nuclear power plants and the still-unsolved challenges associated with its disposal.
Like his Alberta counterpart, Premier Danielle Smith, Ford seems almost pathologically opposed to solar and wind energy. From the moment he was elected, Ford made it clear he was not interested in clean technology of any description; he cancelled 750 renewable energy projects, slowed the buildout of electric vehicle charging stations, ended the provincial EV rebate, repeatedly lowered gas taxes and has sided with Enbridge, Ontario’s natural gas provider, at every turn.
He’s budged on EV charging stations recently, probably because failing to build at least some would be a bad look for a province trying to capture EV and battery manufacturing industries. And last year, when it became clear Ontario needed more energy to meet skyrocketing demand, the Ontario government finally opened the door to more solar and wind. Judging by his past record, I would bet that wasn’t Ford’s idea.
…………………………………………. There might be other forces at play causing Ford to favour Big Nuclear over solar and wind. Ford’s government has always been open-minded, shall we say, to the siren songs of business lobbyists, and the nuclear industry is currently in high gear. It could be Ford can only get excited about energy megaprojects with their jobs and potential for federal backing, regardless of the risk and cost. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2025/06/19/opinion/ford-ontario-energy-nuclear-solar-wind?nih=Vf0DQztC-W6YOqBGCjgdMvyuSr-jgXEgtm__lNRKxi0&utm_source=National+Observer&utm_campaign=d7478891e6-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_06_19_01_16&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cacd0f141f-d7478891e6-277039322
Survey Results Show Tremendous Dissatisfaction with Nuclear Waste Project and Proponent.
We the Nuclear Free North 12 June 25
| Dryden – A not-for-profit organization that tracks a nuclear waste burial project proposed for northwestern Ontario has released the results of a recent survey gauging public attitudes towards the Nuclear Waste Management Organization and its project. We the Nuclear Free North‘s survey results show an overwhelmingly negative response to the NWMO’s project and communications. |
An invitation to complete the survey was distributed by email and through social media on a wide variety of sites. Over 300 responses were received in the ten-day survey period. Just under 60% of respondents were from northern Ontario (northwestern and northeastern), 36% were from the rest of Canada, and the remainder international or unknown. Respondents include nuclear industry employees, Indigenous people, residents of Ignace and members of Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation, and residents from across northern Ontario and across Canada.
Overwhelmingly, respondents expressed a negative view of NWMO operations:
- 94% were not confident that the NWMO’s safety culture would keep Canadians safe.
- A very large majority found that NWMO communications were not transparent or honest.
- 93% were not confident in the NWMO’s ability to implement the safe, long-term management of nuclear fuel waste.
- 94% were not confident that NWMO’s work aligned with Reconciliation or Indigenous Knowledge.
- 96% were not comfortable with the nuclear industry being in charge of the NWMO
- 92% did not believe that the siting process was fair or gained the necessary consent
Every year the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) releases their annual report and a five year “implementation plan” which – according to the NWMO – sets out what the nuclear waste corporation will be doing over the coming years. The NWMO also invites feedback through a survey. WTNFN has heard from many that they are reluctant to provide the NWMO with their personal information, and they are uncertain how the NWMO will use their responses. Providing an alternative means for Canadians to express their views motivated the deployment of an alternate survey.
“We think it’s important to hear the views and responses of Canadians to the NWMO’s plans and proposal to transport, process, bury and then abandon the high-level nuclear fuel waste from all Canadian reactors at the NWMO’s selected site in the heart of Treaty #3 territory in northwestern Ontario”, explained Brennain Lloyd, project coordinator with Northwatch and a volunteer with We the Nuclear Free North.
Lloyd explained that potential respondents were invited to take five minutes and complete the simple survey, with the assurance that their personal information would be used only to verify responses and would not be shared with the Nuclear Waste Management Organization or government, or any other parties.
The results of the survey have been reported by We the Nuclear Free North to the federal Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, along with a letter summarizing key messages from the survey results and providing backgrounders on the NWMO project, site selection and public and Indigenous opposition. A copy of the survey report has also been provided to the NWMO.
In writing to the federal Ministers, the group also conveyed that throughout the NWMO’s lengthy siting processes there have been many expressions of opposition to and rejection of the NWMO’s siting process and their project.
“These expressions have come in many forms, including resolutions passed by Grand Council Treaty #3 just weeks before the NWMO announced the selection of the Revell site – in the heart of Treaty #3 territory – in November 2024. More recently, Eagle Lake First Nation has initiated legal action against the NWMO’s site selection. Earlier resolutions have been passed by Nishnawbe Aski Nation, Anishnabek Nation, and many First Nations and municipalities” commented Wendy O’Connor, a volunteer with Nuclear Free Thunder Bay and We the Nuclear Free North.
The group has requested to meet with the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and will be seeking meetings with Members of Parliament who represent northeastern and northwestern Ontario ridings throughout the summer break.
Protest against Chalk River nuclear waste disposal project
It’s a choice between defending life and water or protecting the nuclear industry.
Pierre Chapdelaine de Montvalon, Radio-Canada, Espaces Autochtones, May 26, 2025-https://ici.radio-canada.ca/espaces-autochtones/2167618/chalk-river-kebaowek-dechet-nucleaire
Opposition to the proposed Chalk River nuclear waste disposal site continues unabated. A coalition of Aboriginal leaders and elected officials met Monday morning in Montreal to denounce the proposed Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF) on the Ontario side of the Ottawa River.
For nearly 10 years, the community of Kebaowek, in Témiscamingue, has been fiercely opposed to the construction of such a site, and is leading a court battle against the organization responsible for the project, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL).
At a press conference, First Nation Chief Lance Haymond reiterated his community’s fears about the risks of water contamination and the effects on biodiversity of such a project, which he said would not respect First Nations’ rights.
Several speakers added their voices to call on the governments of Quebec and Canada to reject the project.
For the new Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador, Francis Verreault-Paul, such a project is a threat to our waters, our rights, our cultures and our traditional ways of life.
“Where is the free, prior and informed consent of First Nations, which is at the heart of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?” he asked at a press conference.
It’s a choice between defending life and water or protecting the nuclear industry.
The Quebec government challenged
Manon Massé, Aboriginal Affairs spokesperson for the Québec solidaire party, took advantage of the press conference to directly challenge Quebec Premier François Legault, Environment Minister Benoit Charette and Ian Lafrenière, Minister responsible for relations with First Nations and Inuit.
“What do you mean, these people should not react against such a project? It’s immoral and inhuman to allow Quebecers to be put at risk like this.”
At the time of publication, the office of the Minister of the Environment had not responded to our questions.
“It makes no sense for such a project to be so close to such an important water resource,” added Rébecca Pétrin, Director of Eau secours. “Why aren’t our governments opposed to this?”
A Long Term Project
The proposed near-surface waste management facility is a project launched in 2016 by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, a private-sector consortium [of multinational corporations] responsible for managing federal nuclear sites.
The corporation’s proposed site would house low-level radioactive waste from the Chalk River Laboratories site, Canada’s largest nuclear science research complex, and other Canadian sites.
This waste includes contaminated soil and discarded items such as mops, protective clothing and rags that have been slightly contaminated.
LNC claims in its documentation that the project poses no contamination risk to the river.
“The NSDF is designed to protect the Ottawa River, not harm it. Drinking water downstream is not at risk,” states the LNC reference document.
The organization also assures us that radioactivity at the site will return to naturally occurring levels in a hundred years, and that the site will be monitored for hundreds of years.
Preventing long-term contamination
The president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, Gordon Edwards, insisted at the press conference that such waste should not be stored near any watercourse, and feared long-term contamination.
[14 of the 31 radioactive waste materials to be stored in the NSDF have half-lives of more than 100,000 years, and 22 of them have half-lives of more than 5,000 years.]
The octogenarian activist cited the example of a disused salt mine in Germany, which had been used as a dump for low-level nuclear waste.
After 20 years, radioactive pollutants began to seep into the environment and contaminate the ground water, despite all the precautions taken.
“Instead of pretending that this is not a problem, or that it’s a problem that has been solved, we need to consider that we have an intergenerational responsibility. We shouldn’t be thinking of simply abandoning this waste permanently. I don’t think we have sufficient scientific knowledge to do that,” he explains in an interview.
In early 2024, the Chalk River site was found to be discharging toxic wastewater.
A project challenged in court
In 2024, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) announced that it was giving the green light to construction of the NSDF.
This decision was successfully challenged in court by the Kebaowek Algonquin community.The Federal Court first ruled in favor of the Kebaowek on the government’s failure to obtain free, prior and informed consent in the case, which runs counter to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), adopted and codified by Ottawa in 2021.
“We never gave our consent to the project, and we were never consulted,” said Chief Lance Haymond.
Canadian Nuclear Laboratories has appealed the court’s decision, but has also initiated a consultation process with the First Nation.
“It’s difficult to talk to CNL representatives about the parameters of a consultation process, when on the other hand, their lawyers are fighting us in court,” lamented Lance Haymond in an interview.
“The government can’t talk about reconciliation while appealing court decisions.”
– Lance Haymond, Chief of Kebaowek First Nation
In writing, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) states that it is committed to working with Kebaowek First Nation and CNL to implement the court’s directive in a transparent and judicious manner. “We are working with the Kebaowek First Nation and the CNL to develop a collaborative consultation process consistent with the court’s directive.”
The Federal Court also recognized that the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories had not sufficiently examined other options for the location of the nuclear waste dump. [This is required by law because of several species at risk that have been identified by Kebaowek.] CNL has also appealed the decision.
A third lawsuit by citizens’ groups and scientists opposed to the project was dismissed by the Federal Court.
Nine other Anishnabeg Algonquin communities support Kebaowek’s fight against the development of the NSDF, as do dozens of Quebec municipalities.
Pikwakanagan, an Anishnabe community on the other side of the Ottawa River in Ontario, supports the project.
Coalition urges Carney to drop nuclear from energy plan
by Abdul Matin Sarfraz, National Observer, May 23, 2025
A coalition of First Nations, physicians and environmental organizations is ramping up pressure on Prime Minister Mark Carney to drop nuclear energy from his “energy superpower” strategy, warning it comes with high costs, long delays and long-term risks.
In an open letter, dozens of organizations urge the federal government to halt funding for nuclear development and instead prioritize renewables, energy efficiency and storage. The letter warns that new nuclear projects are likely to increase electricity costs while delaying meaningful climate action.
“We are concerned that you may be unduly influenced by the nuclear and fossil industry lobbies,” reads the letter.
During the federal election campaign, Carney pledged to make Canada “the world’s leading energy superpower,” focusing on clean and conventional energy. His platform promised faster project approvals and a national clean electricity grid, among other energy promises. The coalition sent their letter in an effort to ensure Carney does not invest more significantly in nuclear energy, as he prepares to set his government’s agenda and ministers’ mandates.
While Carney’s plan doesn’t mention nuclear energy, he praised it during the first leaders’ debate and referenced two companies in the sector he previously worked with at Brookfield Asset Management…………………………………………..
In an open letter, dozens of organizations urge the federal government to halt funding for nuclear development and instead prioritize renewables, energy efficiency and storage.
The federal government — through the Canada Infrastructure Bank — has committed $970 million in low-cost financing to Ontario’s Darlington New Nuclear Project, which aims to build Canada’s first grid-scale small modular reactor.
The federal government also invested millions in Moltex Clean Energy, a New Brunswick-based company developing a technology called Waste to Stable Salt, which aims to recycle nuclear waste into new energy.
Jean-Pierre Finet, spokesperson for le Regroupement des organismes environnementaux en énergie, one of the organizations that signed the open letter, said he worries about the long-term future of any nuclear plants built today without a plan for their waste.
“We object to our federal taxpayer dollars being spent on developing more nuclear reactors that could be abandoned in place, ultimately transforming communities into radioactively contaminated sites and nuclear waste dumps that will require more federal dollars to clean up,” Finet said.
Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and a longtime nuclear critic, says the federal government is backing the slowest and most expensive energy option on the table.
“In a climate emergency, you have to invest in things that are faster and cheaper,” Edwards said. “Canada hasn’t built new reactors in decades. There’s no practical experience left, and what’s being proposed now is largely speculative.”
“We’re very concerned about a misappropriation of public money and investment in what we see as a losing strategy,” Edwards said, stressing that the coalition is not asking private companies to stop building plants — but rather asking the federal government to stop subsidizing them.
International concerns echo at home
Much of the current controversy focuses on Ontario’s Darlington New Nuclear Project, as growing skepticism around the cost of small modular reactors mirrors global concerns.
In the US, two nuclear reactors in South Carolina were abandoned after $12.5 billion (CAD) had already been spent, triggering the bankruptcy of Westinghouse Nuclear — now owned by Canadian firms Brookfield and Cameco. Meanwhile, two completed Vogtle reactors in Georgia came in at $48 billion, more than double the original $19-billion estimate, making them among the most expensive infrastructure projects in US history.
In the UK and Europe, new nuclear power project efforts are facing delays, budget overruns, or outright cancellations.
………………………………ome energy experts say the small modular reactor path is out of sync with climate timelines and economic realities. “Nuclear is a very high-cost and high-risk option,” said Mark Winfield, professor at York University and co-chair of its Sustainable Energy Initiative. “These subsidies divert resources from much less costly and lower-risk options for decarbonizing energy systems. The focus on nuclear can delay more substantive climate action.”
Winfield calls small modular reactors “a distraction and likely a dead end,” warning that the technology carries catastrophic accident, safety, security and weapons proliferation risks not found in any other form of energy production.
Winfield said Canada lacks a significant comparative advantage in energy production beyond its legacy hydro assets, and remains a relatively high-cost fossil fuel producer.
“There is no reason to believe that we would be better at other energy production technologies (nuclear, renewables) than anyone else,” Winfield added in an email. ome energy experts say the small modular reactor path is out of sync with climate timelines and economic realities. “Nuclear is a very high-cost and high-risk option,” said Mark Winfield, professor at York University and co-chair of its Sustainable Energy Initiative. “These subsidies divert resources from much less costly and lower-risk options for decarbonizing energy systems. The focus on nuclear can delay more substantive climate action.”
Winfield calls small modular reactors “a distraction and likely a dead end,” warning that the technology carries catastrophic accident, safety, security and weapons proliferation risks not found in any other form of energy production.
Winfield said Canada lacks a significant comparative advantage in energy production beyond its legacy hydro assets, and remains a relatively high-cost fossil fuel producer.
“There is no reason to believe that we would be better at other energy production technologies (nuclear, renewables) than anyone else,” Winfield added in an email.ome energy experts say the small modular reactor path is out of sync with climate timelines and economic realities. “Nuclear is a very high-cost and high-risk option,” said Mark Winfield, professor at York University and co-chair of its Sustainable Energy Initiative. “These subsidies divert resources from much less costly and lower-risk options for decarbonizing energy systems. The focus on nuclear can delay more substantive climate action.”
Winfield calls small modular reactors “a distraction and likely a dead end,” warning that the technology carries catastrophic accident, safety, security and weapons proliferation risks not found in any other form of energy production.
Winfield said Canada lacks a significant comparative advantage in energy production beyond its legacy hydro assets, and remains a relatively high-cost fossil fuel producer.
“There is no reason to believe that we would be better at other energy production technologies (nuclear, renewables) than anyone else,” Winfield added in an email.ome energy experts say the small modular reactor path is out of sync with climate timelines and economic realities. “Nuclear is a very high-cost and high-risk option,” said Mark Winfield, professor at York University and co-chair of its Sustainable Energy Initiative. “These subsidies divert resources from much less costly and lower-risk options for decarbonizing energy systems. The focus on nuclear can delay more substantive climate action.”
Winfield calls small modular reactors “a distraction and likely a dead end,” warning that the technology carries catastrophic accident, safety, security and weapons proliferation risks not found in any other form of energy production.
Winfield said Canada lacks a significant comparative advantage in energy production beyond its legacy hydro assets, and remains a relatively high-cost fossil fuel producer.
“There is no reason to believe that we would be better at other energy production technologies (nuclear, renewables) than anyone else,” Winfield added in an email.ome energy experts say the small modular reactor path is out of sync with climate timelines and economic realities. “Nuclear is a very high-cost and high-risk option,” said Mark Winfield, professor at York University and co-chair of its Sustainable Energy Initiative. “These subsidies divert resources from much less costly and lower-risk options for decarbonizing energy systems. The focus on nuclear can delay more substantive climate action.”
Winfield calls small modular reactors “a distraction and likely a dead end,” warning that the technology carries catastrophic accident, safety, security and weapons proliferation risks not found in any other form of energy production.
Winfield said Canada lacks a significant comparative advantage in energy production beyond its legacy hydro assets, and remains a relatively high-cost fossil fuel producer.
“There is no reason to believe that we would be better at other energy production technologies (nuclear, renewables) than anyone else,” Winfield added in an email. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2025/05/23/news/civil-society-first-nations-groups-carney-nuclear-energy-plan?nih=cCuxV9ZjIGLlEj3vVOQpRJBIfmNu0W4xzKEBn8bDrx8&utm_source=National+Observer&utm_campaign=d2c908330f-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_05_23_02_10&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cacd0f141f-d2c908330f-277064766
Canada wants to join Golden Dome missile-defence program, Trump says
Ottawa confirms it’s talking to U.S. about major multi-year program
Alexander Panetta · CBC News ·May 20, 2025, https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/golden-dome-trump-us-missile-defence-canada-1.7539390
Donald Trump says Canada has asked to join the missile-defence program his administration is building, adding a new chapter to a long-running cross-border saga.
The U.S. president dropped that news in the Oval Office on Tuesday as he unveiled the initial plans for a three-year, $175 billion US project to build a multi-purpose missile shield he’s calling the Golden Dome.
“Canada has called us and they want to be a part of it,” Trump said. “They want to hook in and they want to be a part of it.”
Canada will pay its “fair share,” he added. “We’ll work with them on pricing.”
Ottawa confirmed it’s talking to the U.S. about this but added a caveat. In a statement, the federal government cast missile-defence discussions as unresolved and as part of the overall trade and security negotiations Prime Minister Mark Carney is having with Trump.
What this means is still extremely murky. It’s unclear what, exactly, Canada would contribute; what its responsibilities would include; what it would pay; and how different this arrangement would be from what Canada already does under the Canada-U.S. NORAD system.
Refused to join
Canada has long participated in tracking North American skies through NORAD, and feeds that data into the U.S. missile-defence program.
But Canada never officially joined the U.S. missile program, which was a source of controversy in Ottawa in the early 2000s when Prime Minister Paul Martin’s government refused to join.
That previous refusal means Canadians can monitor the skies but not participate in any decision about when to launch a hypothetical strike against incoming objects.
New developments have forced the long-dormant issue back onto the agenda.
For starters, the U.S. is creating a new system to track various types of missiles — one more sophisticated and multi-layered than Israel’s Iron Dome, intended to detect intercontinental, hypersonic and shorter-range cruise weapons.
And this happens to be occurring as Canada’s sensors in the Arctic are aging out of use. Canada has committed to refurbishing those sensors.
Rumblings of Canada’s interest started months ago
The first public indication that these combined factors were fuelling a policy shift in Canada came in public comments made earlier this year in Washington.
One U.S. senator said, in February, that he’d heard interest in the missile program from a Canadian colleague, then-defence minister Bill Blair.
Blair publicly acknowledged the interest, saying that, given the upgrades being planned by both the U.S. and Canada, the partnership “makes sense.”
But the form of Canadian participation is, again, unclear. The U.S. commander for NORAD appeared recently to suggest that Canada’s participation will be limited to tracking threats.
One missile-defence analyst says it sounds like an extension of existing Canada-U.S. co-operation through NORAD. Still, says Wes Rumbaugh, it’s interesting that Trump chose to draw attention to it. Trump mentioned Canada’s role several times, unprompted, during his announcement Tuesday.
As for the president’s three-year timeframe, Rumbaugh calls it a long shot. He predicts that only part of the system could be built in that period, and that it will take more years, and more funding, to complete.
It could take much, much more funding. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this project could cost hundreds of billions more than the $175 billion US figure cited by the president.
“This is still a significant challenge,” said Rumbaugh, a fellow in the missile defence project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think-tank in Washington.
“We’re talking about sort of a next-generation and a widely enhanced missile-defence system. We’re talking about a step-change evolution in American air and missile defence systems that will require significant investment over potentially a long time period.”
Canada confirms Golden Dome discussions
Nearly three hours after Trump’s announcement, Ottawa confirmed the discussions are happening. An evening statement from Carney’s office said Canadians gave the prime minister an electoral mandate to negotiate a comprehensive new security and economic relationship with the U.S.
“To that end, the prime minister and his ministers are having wide-ranging and constructive discussions with their American counterparts,” said the statement.
“These discussions naturally include strengthening NORAD and related initiatives such as the Golden Dome.”
A Canadian cabinet minister involved in similar discussions in the early 2000s says it’s high time the conversation resumed.
“I see this as a positive,” said David Pratt, a Liberal defence minister in the first Martin cabinet.
He favoured Canada’s participation in a North American missile defence system back then but says the government blanched out of fear of political blowback, with its minority government fragile.
He said the refusal to join came with a cost. In part, NORAD lost part of its potential vocation, as missile interception became a U.S.-only activity, and related research and manufacturing opportunities flowed to the U.S., he said.
The specific U.S. ask of Canada was never fully defined back then, he said. Pratt recalls negotiations having just gotten underway about what role Canada would play and whether it would merely host sensors or also interceptors on its soil.
I’m hoping we’ll see NORAD assume what should have been its rightful role,” he told CBC News.
Civil society says nuclear deserves no place in Prime Minister Carney’s “Energy Superpower” project.
Gordon Edwards, May 21, 2025
Today 131 civil society and Indigenous groups representing many thousands of members across Canada reminded Prime Minister Mark Carney that climate action requires renewable – not nuclear – energy.
In an open letter to Prime Minister Carney, available HERE, representatives from the civil society and Indigenous groups wrote that building more nuclear reactors is not a cost-effective, clean or smart climate option. The government’s “Energy Superpower” project should include renewable energy and exclude nuclear reactor development from public subsidies.
The groups reminded the Prime Minister that, as an economist, he must appreciate that energy efficiency, renewables and energy storage are the best investments for energy supply, requiring less capital investment and providing the best return on the dollar for energy production, job creation, and rapid greenhouse gas reduction.
New nuclear projects are already far more expensive than proven renewable energy sources and there is no guarantee that new nuclear reactor designs will ever generate electricity safely and affordably. Spending on nuclear development is wasting time that must be spent urgently on genuine climate action.
“The nuclear industry, led by American corporations and start-ups, has failed to convince us that new reactor designs will address the climate crisis and overcome the exorbitant cost, toxic radioactive waste and threats of nuclear disasters that have plagued the nuclear industry for decades,” said Dr. Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR).
“Quebec has rejected nuclear power. We object to our federal taxpayer dollars being spent on developing more nuclear reactors that could be abandoned in place, ultimately transforming communities into radioactively contaminated sites and nuclear waste dumps that will require more federal dollars to clean up,” said Jean-Pierre Finet, spokesperson for le Regroupement des organismes environnementaux en énergie (ROEÉ).
The groups are asking for a meeting with Prime Minister Carney to discuss Canada’s energy future.
Read the letter HERE with the list of 131 signatory groups.
First Nations warn of conflict if Ontario proceeds with Bill 5
‘They’re looking for a world of opposition from First Nations in Ontario that are not going to just sit idly by’: First Nations leadership publicly slams proposed bill that would cut ‘red tape’ for economic projects — and potentially erode treaty rights.
Bay Today.ca, James Hopkin, 19 May 25
First Nations leadership is calling on Premier Doug Ford and the Ontario government to put a stop to a newly proposed bill that chiefs say would bulldoze the inherent rights of the Anishinabek and their existing treaty relationships with the Crown.
Robinson Huron Waawiindamaagewin (RHW) is publicly opposing Bill 5, which the political organization says will give extended powers to the province through the creation of “special economic zones” that would allow for the cabinet to exempt selected proponents and projects from requirements under any provincial law or regulation.
This includes bylaws of municipalities and local boards that would otherwise apply in that zone — all while repealing the Endangered Species Act.
RHW spokesperson and Anishinabek Nation Regional Chief Scott McLeod told SooToday that Ford framing Bill 5 as a way of cutting red tape for infrastructure and resource development projects is a “gross understatement,” and that Ontario is essentially gutting environmental checks and balances while undermining the treaty relationship with First Nations in Robinson Huron Treaty territory.
“He’s undermining the reality that Ontario, under the jurisdiction of Canada, inherited the treaty of 1850 from the British Crown, which laid out our relationship as title owners to the land and our willingness to share those resources,” McLeod said during a telephone interview Wednesday.
“He simply is moving forward on this as if Ontario owns the resources outright, and has no obligations to the treaties that are within Ontario.”
The tabling of Bill 5, known as the Protect Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act, has also triggered opposition from the Anishinabek Nation, a political advocate for 39 member First Nations representing approximately 70,000 citizens across the province.
The organization says the bill “reflects a dangerous and false narrative that presumes the Government of Ontario has unilateral authority to legislate over lands and resources without consultation or consent from the rightful Anishinabek title holders.”
“To allow lands of economic value that have been cited for development to be exempt from protective checks and balances, such as archaeological assessments and wildlife and ecosystem protections as proposed in this bill will cost First Nations and Ontarians profoundly, exposing and setting back species at risk protection and leading to the destruction of First Nation burial sites and artifacts,” Anishinabek Grand Council Chief Linda Debassige said in a release issued Tuesday. …………………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.baytoday.ca/local-news/first-nations-warn-of-conflict-if-ontario-proceeds-with-bill-5-10673506?utm_source=Email_Share&utm_medium=Email_Share&utm_campaign=Email_Share
80% of Ontarians want the province to cancel its contract for GE-Hitachi nuclear reactors.
Ontario Clean Air Alliance, https://www.cleanairalliance.org/poll-report/
Polling conducted in May 2025 by Oraclepoll Research shows that 80% of Ontarians want the province to cancel its contract for GE-Hitachi nuclear reactors, while 70% prefer lower cost solar and wind power.
The poll also finds majority support for Great Lakes offshore wind power; expansion of Canada’s east-west electricity grid to increase Ontario’s ability to import water, wind and solar power from Manitoba, Quebec and the Maritimes; and no-money-down, zero-interest financing for electric heat pumps to reduce our dependency on American gas for home heating.
Ontario’s Costly Nuclear Folly
May 12, 2025 • David Robertson, https://socialistproject.ca/2025/05/ontarios-costly-nuclear-folly/#more
The last time the nuclear industry got its way in the province, Ontario Hydro spent over two decades building 20 nuclear reactors. It was a mash-up of missed deadlines, cost overruns, and a troubling pattern of declining nuclear performance.
Even more troubling, the last generation of nuclear reactors forced Ontario Hydro to the edge of bankruptcy. And it saddled us with a mountain of nuclear debt that we are still paying off.
The Conservative government of Doug Ford is now repeating those costly mistakes in the largest expansion of the nuclear industry in Canada’s history. A nuclear blunder on steroids.
Part 1: Past Debt Due
In 1999, Ontario Hydro collapsed under the staggering weight of its nuclear debt. When the account books were opened, the reality hit home. At the time, Hydro’s assets were valued at $17.2-billion but its debt amounted to $38.1-billion. The government was faced with a stranded debt of $20.9-billion.
In response, the government of the day split Ontario Hydro into five separate organizations. Ontario Power Generation took over the generating facilities (hydro, coal, gas, nuclear) and Hydro One, later privatized, inherited the transmission grid. Neither of these organizations would survive if they had to carry the debt. The government was aware that any future hopes of privatizing the successors of Ontario Hydro would be scuttled if investors had to absorb the debt. The debt was transferred to Ontario families through special charges on electricity bills (until 2018), regular electricity bills, and the tax system. It was the world’s largest nuclear bailout, one we are still paying.
The Ontario Electrical Financial Corporation is one of the five Ontario Hydro successor entities. It was set up to manage and service the long-term debt of the former Ontario Hydro. According to its 2024 Annual Report, the total debt, twenty-five years later, is still $12.1-billion. In 2024, OEFC paid $626-million in interest charges alone, an amount that is recouped from taxpayers and ratepayers. In its financial statements the organization notes that its longest-term debt issue matures on December 2, 2050. In 2050, Ontario will still be paying the debt of the failed nuclear program of the 1970s and 80s.
Part 2: Repeating Past Mistakes
Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is owned by the government of Ontario. OPG is leading Ontario’s nuclear resurrection. It is aided and abetted by the IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator) another surviving offshoot of the collapse of Ontario Hydro. And it is directed by a series of government policy announcements and legislative initiatives. These directives put nuclear on the fast track while shouldering aside clean, cost-effective, and safe renewables.
It is an astonishing nuclear industry coup. Without putting up their own money, without bearing the financial risks, the nuclear industry has captured Ontario’s energy policy and turned crown agencies into nuclear cheerleaders.
Even a few years ago this would have seemed impossible. The nuclear industry was on the ropes. Catastrophic nuclear accidents at Three Mile Isle in the US, Chernobyl in Ukraine, and Fukushima in Japan had severely tarnished the nuclear safety image. All around the world, the cost overruns and lengthy build times of nuclear plants had chilled utility and government interest in more nuclear plants. In Europe, only one nuclear plant has been built and come on line since 2000.
In Ontario, the last nuclear reactor went into operation in 1993. Nuclear plants that had been forecast to operate for 40 years showed major signs of early ageing after about ten years. Most of the existing nuclear fleet was rapidly reaching its best before dates. Safety and operational issues plagued the industry. The four units at Pickering had been shutdown because of safety reasons. And shut down again. By 1993, Bruce A’s performance, as a result of ‘fretting’ pressure tubes, had drastically declined. In 1997, Ontario Hydro announced that it would temporarily shut down its oldest seven reactors. By that time, the escalating costs of the newest reactors at the Darlington site were already a cautionary tale. Originally billed in 1978 at $3.9-billion, the final cost in 1993 had more than tripled to $14.4-billion (1993 dollars).
The first generation of nuclear plants had clearly demonstrated the failure of the nuclear industry to deliver electricity on time and on budget. It also demonstrated that nuclear reactors couldn’t provide affordable electricity. In fact, Ontario Hydro’s last public cost comparison (1999) revealed the cost of nuclear energy to be more than six times the cost of hydro electricity. (7.72 c/kWh vs $1.09)
Part 3: The Nuclear Resurrection
It seems that all those ‘hard lessons’ learned have been willfully forgotten. The Ford government has now launched a multipoint nuclear power offensive. It has passed legislation to ensure that nuclear is Ontario’s energy priority. It has made commitments to build untested and costly small modular reactors (SMRs). It has decided to refurbish antiquated nuclear plants (Pickering) when there is no business case to do so. It has announced as the centrepiece of its energy policy the irrational goal of becoming a nuclear energy superpower. And it has opened the public purse to the appetite of the nuclear industry.
It is a power play with some revealing features.
3a. A Propaganda Push
In 2023, OPG launched a series of propaganda ads. The ads, in bus shelters and transit, print, and television, were designed to overcome public skepticism and convince us that a new generation of nuclear was safe, reliable, and clean. The company behind the pubic relations campaign made the following claim: “For years, popular culture has distorted perceptions about nuclear power with false narratives that served to stoke fear.” They go on: “The campaign is intended to recast nuclear power as a “true hero” of the province’s clean energy mix.”
Some of the ads focused on Gen Z and Tik Tok with the cartoon character “Pelly the uranium pellet.” Others were tailored to older generations who were well aware of the problems with the nuclear industry and there were ads which simply made outrageous claims. For example, the ad for Small Modular Reactors declared that “SMRs are clean and reliable.” Quite the claim since none have been built.
The ad campaign effectively echoed the industry’s talking points, talking points that have become the mantra of the Ford government. Nuclear energy is now described by Ontario’s energy minister as “clean,” “non-emitting,” “reliable,” and “fundamental to our future.”
3b. A revolving door between the government and the industry
Back in June 2024, former Energy Minister Todd Smith left the government, after spending billions on the nuclear industry and promising billions more. Upon his departure, Todd Smith landed a job as a VP of CANDU Energy Inc. CANDU Energy Inc was created when SNC-Lavalin purchased the commercial reactor division of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited from the federal government in 2011. In an effort to distance itself from its scandal ridden past, SNC-Lavalin has since changed its name to AtkinsRealis. The company is heavily involved in the refurbishment of Ontario nuclear plants and the plans for new builds.
3c. The technological hype of SMRs
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are not small and they are not that modular. And they are not that new. The designs, of which there are about 54, have been kicking around for a long time. It’s just that no one wanted to build them, and investors were loathe to put up their own money. The fate of SMRs changed when the nuclear industry convinced governments in Canada to develop what it called the “SMR Roadmap.” The “Roadmap,” largely produced by the industry, was all hype and little substance, but it was enough to convince the Ford government to join the parade.
The World Nuclear Industry Status Review is an annual independent assessment of the global nuclear industry. In its 2022 review, it concluded:
“Small modular (nuclear) reactors or SMRs continue to hog the headlines in many countries, even though all the evidence so far shows that they will likely face major economic challenges and not be competitive on the electricity market. Despite this evidence, nuclear advocates argue that these untested reactor designs are the solution to the nuclear industry’s woes.”
In the 2024 edition of the review, the analysts note: “The gap between hype about Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and reality continues to grow. The nuclear industry and multiple governments are doubling down on their investments into SMRs, both in monetary and political terms.”
3d. Over-the-top visioning and ideological straw men
Stephen Lecce became the Minister of Energy in June 2024. Shortly afterwards, he travelled to the US where he made a pitch to western leaders and industry movers and shakers. He told them that Ontario is building a blueprint for a nuclear energy future.
A CP wire story put it this way: “Ontario is selling itself as the nuclear North Star to guide the direction of American power.”
Speaking to a largely American audience, he said it’s time to “rid our economies of any dependence on these foreign states that … do not share our democratic embrace,” (Oops).
The minister’s early charm offensive turned more aggressive back home when he criticized those who support renewable energy as” ideologues” who want to “romanticize certain resources.” As he told the National Post, “We are seeing forces on the left, the illiberal left, who cannot come to terms with the fact that in order to decarbonize we’re going to need nuclear.”
The commitment to nuclear was further baked into Ontario’s future when the Ford government released its energy vision in October 2024. The document ironically entitled “Ontario’s Affordable Energy Future” sets the stage for a massive build out of nuclear power.
It also makes it clear that Ontario has set its sights on becoming a nuclear energy superpower in the hopes of selling expensive nuclear electricity to the US and costly nuclear technology to the world.
Reflecting the grandiose aspirations of a would-be energy superpower the Minister declared that “this was Ontario’s moment.”
3e. The legislative lock-in
In December 2024, the government passed the misnamed “Affordable Energy Act” (Bill 214) The legislation has many troubling aspects. Various sections of the act restrict public consultation, further erode the independence of regulatory tribunals, and shifts more decision making to the government. But most alarming is how the government has used the Act to give preference and priority to nuclear power. Section 25.29 (2) of the Act refers to, “the prioritization of nuclear power generation to meet future increases in the demand for electricity …”
3f. The commitment to underwrite the costs of nuclear
The government is bankrolling the nuclear expansion with public money because investors don’t want their own money at risk. The costs of nuclear power have driven private investors away. Even with massive subsidies from governments, investors are reluctant to ante up.
A spokesperson for the government-owned Ontario Power Generation made the point very clear when commenting on small modular reactors.
Kim Lauritsen is a senior OPG vice-president. She told a Global Business conference audience that the crown corporation was willing to take the “first-mover risk.”
As she put it: “Because they (small modular reactors) take too long and the industry needs to see that these things can be built successfully, to give investors the confidence and really get the ball rolling for other jurisdictions.”
Because investors are nervous and because Ontario wants to show the way for other jurisdictions, the Ford government is prepared to saddle Ontario families and future generations with the exorbitant costs of nuclear power.
Part 4: The nuclear three-prong plug: Refurbishments, SMRs and New Large Scale Reactors
Refurbishments
The Ontario government is spending billions to refurbish old nuclear plants. Fourteen reactors are scheduled to be rejuvenated – 6 at Bruce, 4 at Darlington, and 4 at Pickering. The repair schedule for existing nuclear plants stretches out for decades. While these reactors are off line, the government plans to make up the electricity shortfall with more climate wrecking, fossil-gas generating plants.
The cost of the refurbishments will be in excess of $40-billion. That forty billion and the millions more in interest charges will find its way onto our electricity bills.
As our electricity bills go up, so does political pressure and when that pressure reaches a tipping point, the government steps in with subsidies to help reduce electricity bills. It is a repeated pattern in Ontario.
A recent report from the Government’s Financial Accountability Office (FAO) projected the cost of current electricity subsidies to be $118-billion over the next 20 years. These are not all nuclear electricity subsidies. But as we spend more on nuclear and nuclear increases the cost of electricity and governments are pressured to reduce the cost of electricity, there will be even more subsidies to shift the costs from our electricity bills to our taxes.
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)
In addition to the massive refurbishment program the Ford government has announced a series of nuclear new builds.
There will be four new small modular reactors (SMRs) built at the Darlington nuclear location. Site preparation work is already underway on the first one. OPG has convinced the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to forego an environmental impact assessment, relying instead on an assessment that had been done years ago on the site for a different project.
The government has selected the GE-Hitachi BWRX-300 design. This is based on a design that has been kicking around for about 20 years and has had to be redesigned about ten times. It still has never been built. The engineering designs for Darlington have again been changed, making the small modular reactor less small and even less modular.
OPG has not released a cost estimate for the reactors. But there are some indications of the probable magnitude. In the US, the only SMR project that had been approved by the US federal government was NuScale in the mid-west. The project was cancelled because of escalating costs. Originally estimated at $3-billion (US), it was terminated in 2024 when the projected costs reached $9.3-billion (US).
The Tennessee Valley Authority, a large power utility in the US, has partnered with the OPG to promote the GE-Hitachi SMR. The TVA recently provided some estimates of the costs of building the SMR in the US. It indicated that the cost of the first reactor could be about $5.4-billion (US). It hoped the costs could be reduced to about $3.7-billion (US) if more were built. These costs do not include any interest charges, cost overruns, or missed deadlines.
If we assume the lower cost and convert to Canadian dollars, the price tag for the four SMRs at Darlington would be about $20-billion before things go wrong. In 2019, the company’s indicated the costs would have to be below $1-billion (US).
New Large Scale Nuclear Reactors
In July 2023, the Ontario government announced its support to expand the capacity of the Bruce nuclear power plant near Kincardine. The Bruce nuclear generating station is owned by OPG but operated by Bruce Power, a private consortium. Bruce Power is planning a major expansion of the site’s generating capacity. At present, six of the eight reactors are being refurbished. This new development, if it goes ahead, will add an additional 4800 MW, which would require building four or five new reactors. Admittedly, it is early days, and no costs have been provided.
Port Hope
In January 2025, the Ontario government announced that it was in the preliminary stages of a massive new nuclear plant that could be built at the OPG site in Wesleyville, near Port Hope. Officials have suggested the plant could have a capacity of 8,000 to 10,000 megawatts and be in operation by the 2040s. Achieving that generating capacity would require building eight or more nuclear reactors.
Part 5: Calculating the Costs
Continue reading1 This Month
31st January – Challenging the War Machine – a DECLASSIFIED UK SUMMIT
Website of the Week
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (227)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 